Why didn't the OED accept Wordhunt evidence of flip-flop from 1945?
Flip-flop was a double Wordhunt success thanks to Dot Strong who sent us her diary from 1960, and P.D. James who sent in his Customs & Excise declaration from 1957. However, Wordhunters also sent in a 1945 cartoon which appeared to cite the word, but this did not make it past the OED gatekeepers…
Tania Styles, OED Etymologist: On the hunt for antedatings, appearances can be deceptive. If the right string of letters appears in a document, we cannot assume that we have found an example of the word we’re looking for. When we appealed for antedatings of flip-flop in the sense 'a plastic or rubber sandal consisting of a flat sole and straps', this comic strip published in 1945 was sent in as an antedating.
Several things about this example set alarm bells ringing from the outset. Firstly, it appears in an American newspaper, and all the early evidence we have for flip-flop so far seems to be British. Secondly, it would be surprising to find the flip-flop in existence as early as the 1940s. When we came to look at the quotation itself, the context made us think that we were probably dealing with a different kind of footwear entirely. The character is described as 'slopping around in shirt tails, rolled up jeans, sloppy sox and flip flop shoes': the word used is shoes, not sandals, and they are apparently worn with socks. I’ve never tried wearing toe-post sandals with socks, but I imagine it would be extremely uncomfortable, if not impossible. We came to the conclusion that the 'flip flop shoes' in this example were probably not the thong sandals we know and love, just scruffy, ill-fitting shoes that flap around as you walk.
Why did the OED dispute Wordhunt evidence of trainer from 1968?
Wordhunters thought they had found the original trainer in and advert for the Gola trainer in 1968. Not so fast, said the OED…
John Simpson, OED Chief Editor: Wordhunting can throw up near-misses which nevertheless reveal interesting facts about the prehistory of a word. One such example was the early reference to a type of training shoe called the ‘Trainer’ brought out by Gola in 1968, ten years earlier than our first example of the word in this meaning.
We couldn’t include this example as the earliest recorded evidence for our word trainer because it’s not a generic use. It applies to a particular style of shoe, and dates from a time when (according to the evidence) if you referred to a Trainer, you’d be referring specifically to a Gola ‘Trainer’ shoe. Maybe the more general use was around at the time, but there isn’t any evidence to substantiate such a claim as yet.
Names are tricky evidence. Without supplementary evidence for a generic use the lexicographer must take a cautious view. These precursors of common use are intriguing, but ultimately ambiguous – and so must be relegated to a place in the etymological prehistory of the word they purport to represent.